The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Teriba[edit]

Annie Teriba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Vast majority of sources used are either Daily Mail (unreliable) or student newspapers (unreliable and don't establish wider notability). Also despite being quoted in the press once or twice this very much seems like a BLP1E article that centers around criminal allegations. Bosstopher2 (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Prior to the scandal, which received widespread coverage, she was already notable for the magazine she founded, as indicated here, and for the Rhodes Must Fall campaign she organized and was quoted on in Sky News - that got fairly wide coverage:[1][2] and a bunch of other sources. She also was quoted in The Guardian about a protest over a speaker at Oxford: [3], and for leading the Black Students' Union, which she also founded, to get the Oxford Union to declare itself institutionally racist:[4][5][6]. And then lots of in-depth coverage after the scandal including but not limited to:[7][8][9][10][11]. Depending on your point of view, it could be a BLP3E, BLP4E, or (very generously) a BLP5E. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• As a side note, it's worth mentioning that no criminal allegation is mentioned in the article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She's not just in the Daily Mail. I fixed up the sources a little and she's in the Guardian, Huffpost, a newspaper from South Africa, the Independent. I agree that some of the sources (Breitbart!) are not reliable. The student sources just verify the information. But she's well covered in much better sources and passes GNG. She's also part of a hot-button issue right now: "regressive left" I think it's called, that may be why she's covered so well. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a BLP car crash of an article, all reliant on sources of dubious merit. Sammy's supposed extra sources illustrate this problem: a couple of campaigns on which she was a media spokesperson, multiple very opinionated Daily Mail articles, a conservative magazine ranting about "dangerous delusions", and an Independent article on the unbelievably notable topic of "the 12 biggest events to have occurred at UK universities in 2015". This should be deleted post-haste as a poorly-sourced hit piece on a non-notable living person. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Guardian, The Daily Beast, and The Independent are all perfectly respectable, as is Sky News. She also wasn't a "media spokesperson" for these campaigns - she founded and ran them. And far from being a "hit piece" this article gives a far more measured presentation of the non-criminal allegations against this notable person than most of the tabloids did. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's get real: she was *quoted* in The Guardian, and the article in The Independent is so far from substantive coverage that I specifically mocked using it in my initial response. I've been quoted in The Guardian making comment on a campaign I founded too: it sure as hell doesn't make me notable, or the god knows how many thousand either non-notable activists who don't warrant hit-piece Wikipedia articles. Why are we focusing on giving a "far more measured presentation" of very serious allegations that aren't covered in reliable sources? Have you read WP:BLP? The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Current sources clearly establish notability. 1bandsaw (talk) 18:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - good sourcing, per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. A11 coined expression Acroterion (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Awesomebro[edit]

Awesomebro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, and appears to be made up, as searches reveal very little. Contested PROD. Adam9007 (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ansh666 04:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vitor Coutinho Flora[edit]

Vitor Coutinho Flora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod on the grounds that the player does meet NFOOTY however, this was never in question. The original prod was made on the grounds that although sources provided indicate a solitary substitute appearance in a fully professional league, the player has since played only in minor or semi-professional leagues. As such, and as always, the subject specific guideline is trumped by GNG. I can find nothing of any detail on his career in either Brazil or Latvia, where in both instances he seems to have a bit part player that would begin to satisfy GNG, nor anything to support the claim in the article that he played more than once for Botafogo.

Some COMMONSENSE is needed here, and plenty of AFD precedent exists to say that barely passing NFOOTBALL is not enough when you fail GNG, see Oscar Otazu, Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Aleksandr Salimov, Andrei Semenchuk, Artyom Dubovsky, Cosmos Munegabe, Marios Antoniades, Scott Sinclair, Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer, Matheus Eccard, Roland Szabó (2nd nomination), Metodija Stepanovski, Linas Klimavičius, Takumi Ogawa, Nicky Fish and Andrei Nițu, amongst others. Fenix down (talk) 11:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 11:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. Given that this article fails WP:GNG comprehensively and only barely passes WP:NSPORT, it falls under the clause in that guidelines lede that says the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. (Emphasis original). Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - comprehensively fails WP:GNG; clear consensus at AFD that scraping through WP:NFOOTBALL is not enough. GiantSnowman 18:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment and yet we usually undelete previously deleted articles when the player DOES play in a single game. Not sure why a single game for a youngster then is an issue. Nfitz (talk) 05:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:NFOOTBALL has played for Botafogo-SP by playing in the Campeonato Paulista Série A1 a fully professional league as per this.He has played in Latvia top league for FK Daugava Rīga in the 2014 Latvian Higher League and also played in the UEFA Europa League against Aberdeen F.C. as per this and this .Now if he was retired or injured ,I may have agreed but the subject is only 25 and has a had decent career including playing in the top tier of Latvian Football with a couple of International cup appearances and in lower divisions in Brazil.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - @Pharaoh of the Wizards: As I noted above, NFOOTY is irrelevant when the player has only played once in an FPL, particularly when it was four years ago. Playing in the Latvian top league does not confer notability as it is not fully pro and his appearance in the Europa league also do not count as firstly, they were not between teams from FPLs, nor were they in the competition proper, but the qualifying rounds. I am not sure you have fully understood the points being made above, this is not a question about whether a subject meets an article specific guideline, there is no question in that, the question is whether he meets the more important GNG. To claim notability you need to be showing significant non-routine coverage of the player. Fenix down (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment We've created many an article after a single game in a FPL. Many examples are given above ... but going through them, they all appear to be for players who are older, often whose careers are over ... though it is difficult to check given the articles are gone. Is there an example of a player of similar age? Nfitz (talk) 05:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Not sure of the relevance of the age point you are making. This is a discussion about GNG. The player in question here is sourced as having played one FPL game four years ago. GNG always trumps subject specific guidelines and without that single appearance the player would appear not to satisfy any guidlines. Can you provide sources that indicate GNG? Fenix down (talk) 08:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Qualifies for WP:NFOOTBALL as having played a match in a professional league, and having also played in the UEFA Europa League which is a professional tournament. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, there is clear consensus that GNG trumps subject specific guidelines when the subject has played only a handful of FPL games (and his Europa League appearances were in the first qualifying round - at no point is that considered fully professional). This discussion isn't about NFOOTBALL, there is no question he passes that, it is about whether this player passers GNG, which is more important. Can you indicate GNG? Fenix down (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GNG trumps SNG. However, when an SNG is met, we can presume sources exist to satisfy GNG. Unless that presumption is rebutted it should be keep.RonSigPi (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passing WP:NSPORT, no matter how slim the margin, gives the subject of an article a presumption of notability. That shifts the burden to the editors that think the article should be deleted (if such a shift didn't occur, then there would be no point to SNGs). While it is impossible to prove a negative (i.e., that sources don't exist), editors wanting deletion must do more work than a mere 5 minute Google search - they must show that a full effort was made to find sources. In view of WP:BIAS, it would be challenging for English speaking editors that do not live in Brasil or Latvia to truly evaluate sources. This differs, for example, from the Scott Sinclair (referenced above) where it is a lot easier for English speakers to try and find sources. Unless multiple editors fluent in Portuguese and Latvian perform truly detailed searches (more than the first few pages from Google), then I don't think the presumption is invalidated and we presume WP:GNG is met. Again, the community has set WP:NFOOTY and we should respect the standard they set until shown in this case the standard is not valid. RonSigPi (talk) 05:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This young player does meet WP:NFOOTBALL, and still has a long career ahead of him. The "examples" of other cases where the article has been deleted are not comparable, as noted above. Nfitz (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the sources provided by Pharaeo of the Wizards show that he passes WP:NFOOTBALL Atlantic306 (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snow Keep. Overall consensus is that he meets PROF & GNG. (Although there's a delete !vote present they had withdrawn so it's not really counted as such), Anyway consensus is to keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Treanor[edit]

Brian Treanor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Highly promotional article written on this person by the university department he directs. Seems to have published quite a bit, but no sources that are about this person, just ones by him. Blythwood (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Meets WP:SCHOLAR as per WP:NACADEMICS point 5 (named chair at major institution). WP:PROMOTIONAL tone can be fixed and is not a valid reason for deletion in itself. ~Kvng (talk)
• Delete The criteria at WP:SCHOLAR and WP:NACADEMICS are meant as guidelines to quickly assess the likelihood of notability, not as measures of notability itself, the guidelines of which are WP:GNG. This individual may be a named chair at a major institution-- he still needs to have been the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources, and there is no evidence of that provided in this article. That the article was written by a WP:SPA with an institutional name (against policy) adds weight to the reasons for deletion. Changes in tone will not make the subject notable. KDS4444^Talk 11:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:SCHOLAR, "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." The "named chair at major institution" condition is an attempt to mechanically capture these cases. ~Kvng (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's been awhile since I read over WP:SCHOLAR in detail. Hm. My reading of the WP:SCHOLAR criteria is that if a person is a named chair, he/ she is also likely the subject of sources which would show evidence of notability— if someone went looking for them— but that even a named chair is subject to the same notability criteria as other Wikipedia articles and if a search for adequate sources doesn't actually turn up anything that qualifies, even a named chair wouldn't have met the notability criteria and therefore wouldn't warrant an article. I get concerned that the subject-specific notability guidelines (WP:SCHOLAR et al.) sometimes appear to circumvent WP:GNG when they are meant to be quick-assessment tools, not independent notability criteria. KDS4444^Talk 18:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am noticing thatWP:Prof#C5 states, "Criterion 5 can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level, and not for junior faculty members with endowed appointments. Major institutions, for these purposes, are those that have a reputation for excellence or selectivity. Named chairs at other institutions are not necessarily sufficient to establish notability" (emphasis added). Loyola Marymount has an undergraduate acceptance rate of 52%, which only qualifies it as "more selective" according to US News & World Report. I am not sure how to quantify "excellence" here, however. My personal sense (as an academic and as a resident of Los Angeles) is that it's considered a "good but very expensive school", on a completely different tier from UCLA or USC. KDS4444^Talk 18:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KDS4444 -- you're right that there's a range of possible agreement levels for what "excellence" or "selectivity" means. While the "chair = full prof. chair, not career development chair" part of the criteria has an almost universally accepted meaning, the second part is far less accepted. I think that looking at invocations of the rule in the past will show that Loyola Marymount is clearly in the realm of schools that have usually been accepted, but consensus can change and there hasn't been support for clarifying this part of the rule. Generally US institutions rated "more" or "most" selective in US News have been held to qualify and I would be hard pressed to find a school called "Selective" that hasn't. It's generally schools that were established within the last ten years, very specialized institutions, and institutions in parts of the world that don't have international standards for selectivity that have been borderline or problematic. Another thing that is sometimes a factor is what % of the department has named chairs (are they given out willy-nilly?). Here he's the only one of about a dozen professors in the department. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C5. Also, adequate cites for theology. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep -- named chair at major seminary/school is sufficient. WP:PROF, like all subject specific guides, is an alternative to the General Notability Guideline; if it is satisfied, that is sufficient. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Named chair at a major university should be enough. His Google scholar citations are low [12] but I think that's mostly a function of his field, and in any case it is not needed to pass all WP:PROF criteria, only one of them. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And the wool falls over the eyes of another set of onlookers. This piece was written by the university itself to promote its faculty. Who knew the criteria were so easily met? Or could be written by the university staff? Consider my delete vote to be withdrawn. It serves to purpose here. KDS4444^Talk 22:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you have evidence of this, present it here as a justification for deletion, edit or delete material to improve neutrality, add a tag to the article or bring it up at WP:COI. Certainly WP:PROD is not appropriate for dealing with these issues. ~Kvng (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanathdeva Murutenge[edit]

Sanathdeva Murutenge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Blatant promotion of The internationally known Philosopher, Theoretical High-Energy Astrophysicist, Cosmologist, Cognitive Scientist and System Theorist. No independent references, just own website Staszek Lem (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no reliable independent sources provided establishing notability.Fails WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 01:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I cannot find evidence of significant coverage by independent, reliable sources as required by WP:N. I concur with the nominator's assessment of this article as a blatant promotion. Astro4686 (talk) 03:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. His website is the only source given. I agree, it appears as blatant promotion. JimRenge (talk) 12:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Theoretical physics is a high-citation field, so the people notable in that field generally have many highly-cited publications listed in Google scholar. Murutenge has none. So WP:PROF is out of the question, and I see no other claim of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - seems to be your average crank, albeit one with a medical degree. This could almost have been speedied. Blythwood (talk) 01:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No coverage. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Article's been improved and sourced since nomination. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Murakami (music group)[edit]

Murakami (music group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources lack independence and reliability. Non-notable Russian band. KDS4444^Talk 15:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Added authoritative sources--Кориоланыч (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, needs in some cleanup, but I added a couple of sources, and I believe the notability has been now demonstrated.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notability verified. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oasis Academy School[edit]

Oasis Academy School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability per WP:GNG and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. —me_and 18:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5, created by a confirmed sockpuppet of an indef-blocked user. --Finngall ^talk 15:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  @Finngall: The article had been tagged by another editor for speedy deletion under G5, but that was declined as the article creator wasn't blocked at the time of creation. —me_and 22:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I've restored the article and reverted the good faith close. As me_and correctly notes, the CSD G5 criteria does not apply in this case. Sorry for the confusion folks!--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can someone explain more why you feel it does not meet WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES? If it is a secondary school with proof that it exists, this is normally enough to show notability. I also note that there is some confusion on the page with links to Oasis Academy, which redirects to an unrelated school chain in the UK. JMWt (talk) 09:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, I missed the bit where high schools are usually kept; I saw no evidence of this place being a degree-awarding institution and so assumed it fell into the first bullet as not having a clear claim to notability. Nonetheless, I can't actually find an independent source that even establishes the school exists, so I think the "when zero independent sources can be found" clause applies. It's neither of the Oasis Academies listed in Google Maps in Nepal, the only source in the article is the Facebook page of Pashupati Academy, where I can find no mention of Oasis Academy, and I can't find anything about this school on Google. —me_and 12:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this school isn't listed in the school district's table of examination results, which would strongly imply it doesn't exist, at least not as an independent institution. —me_and 12:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think we'd need someone who speaks the appropriate language to be absolutely sure that this is a hoax, but I'm generally tending to think delete. JMWt (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's unlikely to be a hoax, but "unlikely to be a hoax" isn't "there is independent evidence that it isn't a hoax", which is the requirement here AIUI. —me_and 18:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete nonnotable private school. no independent sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no confirmation that this school exists, and even if it does, the article does not claim to be a secondary school. (With a staff of 12 and a student body of 200 I think it's unlikely to be a secondary school.) If it is not a secondary school it fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES even if it does exist. Note also that the article claims it is a subdivision of Sainik School and is located in Jhapa District, but neither of those articles mention it. --MelanieN (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zveri[edit]

Zveri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another Russian rock band without appropriate links to reliable, independent sources to show evidence of notability. Failing the appearance of these, I propose it be deleted. KDS4444^Talk 15:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep Arved (talk) 09:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welp, that convinces me. Nomination withdrawn. KDS4444^Talk 21:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that more sources would be better, the band has an article in 10 languages, awards and song appearance in a video game so it is oviously notable Arved (talk) 11:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• keep - notability confirmed. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by RHaworth, CSD G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hell Joseon[edit]

Hell Joseon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article about an online neologism that does not seem to be backed up by appropriate secondary sources describing the definition or notability of the term. Instead of explaining this specific term (i.e. The origin, clear definition, history, public usage, influence of the term), the article is more focused on addressing the socio-economic problems of South Korea.

Also, rather than neutrally describing the term, the article is written in quite persuasive tone as if the authors of the article are tyring to convince the readers regarding the validity of the term. The authors also regard their personal opinions about the term as the "conclusion" of the article. Although these two points are not valid reasons for article deletion, I believe such problems must be fixed if we decide not to delete this article.

Thus, I suggest this wikipedia article to be deleted. And I also recommend for the editors of this article, who seems to be interested in addressing Korean socio-economic problems, to make their contributions to the relevant pages about South Korea instead. Just You Know (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SLFFVII[edit]

SLFFVII (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find video game sources: "SLFFVII" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Non-notable game per WP:NVG; no significant coverage other than self-published sources. Drm310 (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the topic of the page is noteworthy as per WP:NVG; the page now lists multiple independant sources which have blogged/discussed the game in question, which has existed for close to a decade, with a significant history in Second Life as 1 of only 2 Second Life roleplays to exist for that long.. FloydGilmour16 (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: FloydGilmour16 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. — Note to closing admin: FloydGilmour16 (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

Comment - Notability is established through non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Reliable sources have an established reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. Blogs and other sites with user-submitted content are self-published sources and generally not considered reliable sources. One of them (Engadget) appears to have editorial control, but the others don't. SLFFVII's own website is a valid primary source but won't count toward establishing notablity. --Drm310 (talk) 04:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Looking through WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine, I found a piece by Destructoid (essentially the same as Engadget's) and nothing else. Does not meet notability, could be mentioned in one sentence at Final_Fantasy_VII#Legacy. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-notable fan video game failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. No meaningful hits in custom RS search. Engadget and Destructoid is not in-depth and covet only a narrow aspect. Other sources in the article are not reliable or in-depth. The available sources do not provide enough material to write a meaningful article without WP:PLOT and WP:GAMECRUFT and with WP:WAF in mind. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete at best as none of the listed coverage suggests convincingly for the applicable video games notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Sphilbrick, CSD G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (پارسا آملی) in violation of ban or block. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Junior Wrestling Championships[edit]

Asian Junior Wrestling Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability, do we really need an article for a continental age group competition for an amateur sport ? Mohsen1248 (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For context please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Junior Wrestling Championships and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asian Junior Karate Championships.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Sphilbrick, CSD G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (پارسا آملی) in violation of ban or block. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asia Masters Athletics Championships[edit]

Asia Masters Athletics Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability, this is a "masters" competition, also poor-written article, lacks proper references. Mohsen1248 (talk) 20:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Terrible article with no sources to prove it's notable. You should also consider nominating similar recent articles like the Asian Yoga Sports Championships that fall under this category. JTtheOG (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You are right abut that Yoga article but this user is a sock, and I already reported him, if they ban him as a sock I will nominate all articles he created for speedy deletion which is easier, if not I will nominate that one for afd. Mohsen1248 (talk) 12:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per WP:G5. — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Armwrestling Championship[edit]

Asian Armwrestling Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks notability, looks like an amateur competition, also lacks references. Mohsen1248 (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. If a merge is still desired, start a discussion on the talk page. (non-admin closure) ansh666 04:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Empower Playgrounds[edit]

Empower Playgrounds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources are old; only independent one is 2008 Statesman article, and technology does not seem to have caught on. Nothing found in Google News archive or Google Scholar searches, and only Google Books hit is passing mention in possibly-POD book. If kept, should be merged to Brigham Young University. Miniapolis 21:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - merge to Brigham Young University. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment; I've found a few sources:

Daily Fail;

USA Today (behind paywall; accessible without Javascript).

Le Figaro (en Francais)

Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• Merge as this is still questionably solidly notable. SwisterTwister talk 18:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I have added a number of reliable sources to the article. Meets GNG. See this page for a starting place. Articles about the company have appeared in USA Today, Grist (just a rehash of the Fast Company article), Fast Company, and many other reliable sources. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Clearly no consensus to delete, but views are split between keep and merge. I recommend pursuing further discussion to see whether a consensus to merge (in a reduced form) can be arrived at. Personally I don't imagine this having lasting importance outside the context of the campaign.  Sandstein  09:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash[edit]

Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Simply not notable. A Facebook group with some weak references does not make a Wikipedia article. Compare with the deletion of Cool Freaks' Wikipedia Club (which I back then supported keeping, now having changed my mind) a similarly non-notable Facebook group with a similar range of sources. Stamboliyski (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the group has made news multiple times. I think it should stay.Zamorakphat (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• probably delete the WaPo article is certainly the strongest source, a lengthy profile of the site in a major national daily. One or two more articles on that level would probably put this in to keep range. And since that article is just up, it may happen.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The subject matter has received credible news coverage multiple times (WaPo, Vice, Yahoo, Telegraph, and local papers as well) and meets the notability guideline for WP. Should be kept. Jason Spriggs ^chat 19:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What Telegraph article, this one? [13], ah, no, you must mean this one[14].E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I still think we need another article or so in something weightier than Yahoo or Vice, on the other hand, I suspect that such an article will appear before 7 days go past.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Surprisingly at that. One would look at the title and write it off, however this has had notable coverage as stated earlier. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Is it notable coverage, though? The deleted article I cited above had basically the same references, replacing the WaPo article with another of similar nature, including flimsy student newspapers and Vice. I think this content is superfluous, and better included in either Sanders' own page or his campaign page. Stamboliyski (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Why don't we just trim this significantly down and merge it into Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016#Internet Memes? Steven Walling • talk 19:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I honestly wouldn't be opposed to that either. There is enough here to warrant inclusion. Didn't think of that at first. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Come think of it, that may be a superior solution. A trimmed version would be good. Stamboliyski (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment it's best to delete the page and move its contents to the Internet memes section of the campaign? I mean the group is notable for inclusion in Wikipedia but not its own page. Winterysteppe (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I think that the group is substantial enough with many subtopics to warrant its own article. Including it in the main campaign article in its entirety would be a possible solution but I believe there is enough of a separation for it to stay as is with another page. Jason Spriggs ^chat 20:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• keep satisfies WP:GNG. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not an index of stupid facebook groups. I support the merge. Sparse article could easily fit here. -- Kjerish (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep BSDMS is widely recognized as a major contemporary cultural phenomenon, certainly on the scale of many other such communities indexed elsewhere on Wikipedia [15] (talk • contribs) 06:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, as it stands, this article could quite easily be merged into the campaign article. My concern is that this article is so new that it's hard to tell how big it can get. We could merge it now and end up splitting it again in a week's time. I think for now, it may just be best to let the dust settle. Certainly no case for speedy deletion here. I will keep this on my watchlist and probably advise again at a later date. Jolly Ω Janner 09:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge And heavily redact all the bullshit. Looks like something a middle schooler would submit to FunnyJunk.com. And Jason Spriggs's examples for what he considers to be notable is ridiculous. It's like saying, "Hey! RedState covered it! Therefore, it's notable!" Vice is a stupid tabloid that publishes junk. Yahoo publishes whatever fucktard bullshit they come across, with no journalistic integrity to check them. Furthermore, the sources aren't nearly as ridiculous as this article, for a reason. Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 18:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and mention that it exists on his campaign page. Possible keep if more notable coverage is found other than the aforementioned WaPo article. --Windy Hands (Frozen Wind public account) (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I would like it to be noted that the "BernieBros", if you will, are doing some canvassing to prevent a proper consensus from forming here, against Wikipedia rules. Example. Stamboliyski (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Fortunately doesn't look like anyone followed through with it. It was posted 24 hours ago and only received two "likes". User:Bedno's appearance is a little odd, but there's nothing here that prevents consensus. Jolly Ω Janner 00:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: Might this be a case of NOTNEWS? In any case arguments for GNG being met is weak and there are few credible sources that cover it extensively. A trivial Facebook page which might endure the test of the future (when potential RSes about it pop into existence) but for now it does not merit a standalone. I agree with sentiments echoed above; this should be merged (and heavily trimmed) with the campaign article. Of course if this were a Trump article... Hm... Kingoflettuce (talk) 07:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This is highly relevant documentation of a major cultural shift away from Silent Generation, Boomers, AND Gen-X toward the Millennial Generation that currently dominates labor markets and our cultural core. To delete this article would be a terrible waste of information, not only content specifically but everything about the framing and construction of this article have extremely high cultural relevance and is exactly the kind of thing that Wikipedia was constructed to capture.
• Keep: This is a highly influential cultural phenomenon with a substantial amount of press coverage, and represents political and social change taking place in the United States today. Z10987 (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Trim and merge with the campaign article. There isn't much depth to the coverage of this, and about half of the article's sources can be discarded as tangential to the subject or simply as unreliable sources. The subject of the article probably fails WP:WEBCRIT because the coverage is mostly superficial. I believe this material could easily be condensed down into about three sentences which would fit snugly in the section already in the campaign article.- MrX 18:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Tally, the numbers stands at 7 keep, 3 merge and 4 delete. Winterysteppe (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016#Internet Memes. General Ization ^Talk 19:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016#Internet Memes. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Tally, the numbers stands at 7 keep, 5 merge and 4 delete. Winterysteppe (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I recommend ignoring the two above merge votes as they did not provide rationale. That said, I don't have an opinion on this myself. Dustin (talk) 03:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Though this is an unusual topic, I don't think it should be deleted as it's pretty significant to the campaign. It ain't 2008 anymore, a Facebook group has much more notability in 2016. Buffaboy ^talk 03:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I also recommend against keeping a tally. That may influence the outcome (whether people support or oppose deletion / merging). Dustin (talk) 03:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree the tally is pointless. These are discussions, not polls. All, but one of the "delete" votes actually include some sort of merging. Rest assured that a closing admin will read all the comments on this page and will probably ignore any votes that have no rationale. This seems to have turned into a discussion on whether to merge with the Bernie campaign article anyway. Jolly Ω Janner 03:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016#Internet Memes. I wasn't aware that I had to provide a novel rationale for my !vote here, and I don't intend to, as I think the case was made very well by others above. General Ization ^Talk 03:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016#Internet Memes. I agree about the tally, but I fail to see the point in excluding votes unless they include their own reiteration of what's already been said. I think it should be condensed and merged into the section I've linked to. I don't believe it can stand on it's own as an article, as it has less than 20 lines of actual content. And ok, it has lots of sources. News articles. A Vice article doesn't automatically bestow importance onto something. And ok, I get the thing about cultural shift millenial meme stuff. But that sounds like the kind of thing to be written about in Internet memes, and not just implied by detailing every Facebook group that breaks 250k. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 07:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016#Internet Memes until it becomes such a stand-alone marvel that we can safely say it's WP:NOTNEWS but a long-term standalone topic since notability isn't something temporary. Also, please do not make tallies. LjL (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Anything but delete Although I'd like this to be it's own article, it is influential and the Bernie v. Hillary meme has become popular. It can stand as its own article, but for now maybe a merge into Bernie's campaign article would be ok for now and wait and see for the future. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The topic has received significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. As such, it passes WP:WEBCRIT and WP:GNG, and qualifies for a standalone article. Source examples include: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The charts are actually templates so can be incorporated into other articles if desired without requiring a merge. I have placed a list of them on the talk page here should anyone wishes to follow this up. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by population (graphical)[edit]

List of countries by population (graphical) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A fork of List of countries by population that I don't think adds anything to the project, other than providing another venue for facts to be updated. I'm very happy to be convinced otherwise, but right now this page is hard to read, out of date, and superfluous to the data that already exists on the list page. — foxj 19:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, the graphs seem pretty useful for visual comparison and can be merged into the other page without the page becoming too large.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unfortunately, the charts include a mishmash of more than just countries - continents, territories, the West Bank and the European Union - and are thus unsalvageable (and out of date). Clarityfiend (talk) 04:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Like written above, this is fairly unsalvageable. It even says the numbers are from the year 2005. In addition the graphs are hard to decipher. All we can utilize is the knowledge that such a graphical template exists on Wikipedia. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indie Bandung[edit]

Indie Bandung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable music genre/movement. Only mentioned in self-published sources; no coverage in reliable, independent sources. Drm310 (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Looks like a machine-translated WP:SOAPBOX for indiebandung.com (article creator is indiebandungcom). - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete incomprehensible , unreferenced. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:NOQUORUM, closing in favour of delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chebolu Seshagiri Rao[edit]

Chebolu Seshagiri Rao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent sources to indicate this person meets the criteria for inclusion. Provided sources only mention Rao in passing, or are mirrors of the Wikipedia page about Rajahmundry, where Rao's name has been added as a "notable resident". Although the text mentions the Padma Bhusan, there is no indication that Rao has won this award, but rather, perhaps, a similarly named award (the "Padma Bhusan Moturi Satyanarayana Award") from the Andhra Pradesh Hindi Academy; an award of unknown notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  20:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  20:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no indication of notability per WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC, with no significant coverage online from WP:RS. As nominator Wikidan61 suggest, the article actually stated that he won a Padmabhushan Dr. Moturi Satyanarayan Award: I previously incorrectly linked this to Padma Bhusan, but have since corrected my error. It's difficult to tell just how notable the Padmabhushan Dr. Moturi Satyanarayan Award is: its domain has been squatted for some time. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Max Keenlyside[edit]

Max Keenlyside (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet any Notability requirements as stated in WP:MUSIC for guidelines on musicians, composers, groups, etc; sources too closely associated with the subject Maineartists (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In an effort to salvage this article I attempted to research the subject for citations that did not fall back to primary sources. The few that came up were only local media that do not claim notability requirements. The subject has already been absorbed into the article for List of ragtime composers and should suffice in keeping with other contemporary, non-notable subjects listed. There is no claim to fame; and the article seems to be fan created or closely related to the subject. There are no notable publications to back Biographical statements (composer) and the Discography is not sourced. References are YouTube linked and/or directly sourced to primary sources to the subject. There is no doubt this talented young gentleman will go far in his field; but for now, this article is not Wikipedia notability worthy. *Delete Maineartists (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Creating deletion discussion for Max Keenlyside

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete at best as still questionable for the solid applicable notability. Notifying tagger Shirt58. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE It is clear from the above comments and study of both the article and its subject that there is no contest regarding non-notability and guidelines not met. MERGE with ragtime composers. Amiamy1995 (talk) 15:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Nanabhai Bhatt. WP:NOQUORUM, closing in favour of redirect to Nanabhai Bhatt. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chaalbaaz (1958 film)[edit]

Chaalbaaz (1958 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect (for now) to director Nanabhai Bhatt, being sourcable as one of his works. IF better sources come forward, I'm okay for its resurrection. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. It's already been listed twice, so I'm hesitant to relist it again. Apparently, the large list of references were added after this review started, and may not have gotten a proper review. I admit, this certainly has all the hallmarks of a position paper, but, even ignoring the WP:SPA comments, I just don't see sufficient arguments in favor of deletion to call this a consensus to delete. No prohibition against immediate re-nomination if somebody feels strongly about it. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agrarian Bonds in Peru[edit]

Agrarian Bonds in Peru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

the article (which, incidentally, lacks sources almost completely) is clearly written by an advocacy group to right a claimed Great Wrong. (Not my words; other editor just reverted to something that didn't have this tagged.) RotubirtnoC (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The page on "Agrarian Bonds in Peru" was previously a very brief article that lacked sources, and a deletion request was in order for the page. However, upon adding 57 sources and a lengthy amount of factual information, I removed both the request for citations as well as the deletion request, since I believed both issues to have been addressed. Many factual and unbiased sources have been added as citations and the accuracy of the information presented has greatly improved. Since the deletion request was submitted when the page was scarcely cited and only very brief, I believe it is now irrelevant. — PagoJusto (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete at best for now because the article currently has no signs of actually looking like a better encyclopedia article, WP:TNT at best or draft and userfy if needed as this is not yet acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 00:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself discusses a topic which is not mainstream and the addition and volume of source material serves to strengthen the points made therein. 73scooty (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. AfD WP:NOTCLEANUP. Huge parts of the text are factual. 'Advocacy' may be fixed much more easily than the 'Great Wrong' which look like it was. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to VFA-82. And redirect. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Attack Squadron 82 (United States Navy)[edit]

Attack Squadron 82 (United States Navy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

VA-82 was renamed VFA-82 and a far more detailed page exists Mztourist (talk) 08:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 05:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect: probably the best course of action, IMO. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per the above. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cristobal Model 3[edit]

Cristobal Model 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable firearm. English and Spanish language searches turned up no reliable sources. Created by User:Ctway sock. ansh666 08:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh666 08:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh666 08:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. ansh666 08:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Just an obscure prototype. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into either an article on the Armory, or into one of their more successful designs. This is in Smith and Smith, if memory serves. Anmccaff (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment...No such article exists. The only successful weapon produced by Armería San Cristóbal was the Cristóbal Carbine a .30 Carbine copy of the Hungarian Danuvia 43M submachine gun. You would need to rename and completely rewrite that article to make to Model 3 fit. Even then, the new article would have notability problems of its own.--RAF910 (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  08:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Variara submachine gun[edit]

Variara submachine gun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable firearm. No English-language reliable sources found, but possible that an Italian speaker could help (or verify that the current reference is valid). ansh666 08:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh666 08:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh666 08:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ansh666 08:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of the article and I managed to find two more sources (in English) to improve the article:
Daniel D. Musgrave, Thomas B. Nelson The World's Machine Pistols & Submachine Guns - Vol. 2 - Ironside International Publishers Inc., 1980.
Ralph Riccio Italian Small Arms, Schiffer Publishing, 2013. -----The Hollow Man2010 (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2016 (EST)

The references have to establish "notably" not just that they were made. In other words...What is it about these guns that merit inclusion on Wikipedia? The answer is nothing. The article itself leaves the reader with more questions than answers. How many of these guns were made? Were they all the same? Where were they made? Who made them? Who designed them? There were many homemade weapons used during WW2 none of them are notable on their own. At best they should be redirceted to Insurgency weapons and tactics.--RAF910 (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Hollow Man2010: how in-depth do the new sources you've provided go about this weapon? If it's just a passing mention (e.g. a name in a list) then it wouldn't be enough, but if there is a reasonably sized entry on it, then that would be acceptable. ansh666 23:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. As no policy backed reasons for this article's retention have been made, the article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Type 79 mini rocket launcher[edit]

Type 79 mini rocket launcher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable weapon; search in English turned up nothing and I'm not really sure what to search for Chinese. Created by a User:Ctway sock. ansh666 08:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh666 08:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh666 08:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ansh666 08:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or else Merge with Paramilitary forces of China, since it seems to have been specifically designed for the various militia forces and the like. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I looked at adding a mention of it to Type 69 RPG but it didn't fit and it's a very obscure weapon. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to McGraw Hill Financial#Corporate history. WP:NOQUORUM, closing in favour of redirect as agreed by the two participants. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GradeGuru[edit]

GradeGuru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable website which no longer exists. No reliable sources are present in the article. Possible merge with McGraw Hill Financial but again lacks notability for this. Polyamorph (talk) 11:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Already mentioned at McGraw Hill Financial. I'm having a hard time trying to think what of this article is worth adding to the mention already existing at McGraw Hill Financial. Maybe the citations? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I added the refs from this article to McGraw Hill Financial#Corporate history where a small paragraph about GradeGuru already existed, like I mentioned. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is good and a redirect would be the most sensible option in my opinion. Thanks Polyamorph (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Jaiswal[edit]

Ajay Jaiswal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to satisfy WP:CREATIVE or WP:COMPOSER. News sources are limited to passing mentions. SuperMarioMan ( Talk ) 20:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The sources cited contain only passing mention of the subject. Fails WP:BIO. utcursch | talk 22:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The currently tossed amount of links and information is not satisfying the creative entertainers notability and this is best restarted later if a better article is available. SwisterTwister talk 19:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Online memorial. Nobody seems to be very convinced that this should stay an article, but not a very clear consensus for straight deletion either.  Sandstein  08:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Digital estate memorial[edit]

Digital estate memorial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not sure what to do about this article. "Digital estate memorial" seems to be a neologism; I can't find anything on Google (24 unique results) that's not a blog or a copy of the Wikipedia article.

The sources provided don't talk about "digital estate memorial" as a general concept, but some talk about digital memorialization. Maybe the answer is to rename it to "digital memorialization", or to move any useful information into other articles like digital inheritance. In any case, the phrase "digital estate memorial" implies a legal concept, which the article does not address except in passing. ... discospinster _talk 03:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and then draft and userfy if needed as this article is still questionably solid. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename or merge - rename if a better, more commonly used term for this exists. If there are many references on the issue of this article all using different names the most descriptive one should be chosen via another poll on the talk page. Otherwise merge into online memorial, memorial or digital inheritance#Memorial. --Fixuture (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ansh666 04:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Kralev[edit]

Nicholas Kralev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One self published book about cheap air fares and no other mentions. Looks like failing notability. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as still questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 04:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep career looks extensive. Curro2 (talk) 02:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Plenty of coverage in reliable sources to meet the GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/Question, how can a 300 word article have over 50 references, a case of WP:OVERCITE? Coolabahapple (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  You are correct, but that is not the matter we are discussing here. Please edit the article to bring it in line with policy. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thats cool, its just that some editors may be intimidated by the wall of refs, the large no. of refs to wade through to ascertain notability, others may be suspect of such a small article having so many refs. Anyway, have commenced reduction.....Coolabahapple (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Whoever puffed him up like this didn't do him any favours, they made him look ridiculous rather than the probably significant person he is. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comment, having gone through the article's references, most of them show that the subject has done a lot (present refs 4 to 47}, in line with 3. first part of WP:CREATIVE - "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work.", but none of those references are useable for the second part of 3. - "In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." (instead the article looks like a WP:RESUME, i know this doesn't mean the subject is not notable.) Refs 1 to 3 do discuss/review one of his books - America's Other Army, so that book may warrant its own article, but it appears not so for the author. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep Coolabahapple has a point, the thicket of sources is not as strong as it looks, as I looked through it, I was leaning towards delete, but his book on diplomacy did get at least one review and some attention in diplomacy journals, academia when it was published, and his book on airtravel also got a little attention [16], so I guess he squeaks past notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:NOQUORUM, closing in favour of delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Northwood R-76[edit]

Northwood R-76 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable firearm. Search turned up no reliable sources. Created by User:Ctway sock. ansh666 07:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh666 07:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh666 07:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. ansh666 07:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also including these related weapons (all Rhodesian Bush War era improvised submachine guns):

Kommando LDP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Cobra submachine gun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rhogun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Grot CH-9/25 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

ansh666 07:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:NOQUORUM, closing in favour of delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Varan PMX-80[edit]

Varan PMX-80 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable firearm; search turned up no reliable sources. Given source is more or less useless. Created by User:Ctway sock. ansh666 07:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh666 07:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. ansh666 07:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh666 07:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:NOQUORUM, closing in favour of delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prado machine gun[edit]

Prado machine gun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable firearm; search in English and Spanish found no reliable sources. Created by User:Ctway sock. ansh666 06:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh666 06:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. ansh666 06:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 06:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh666 07:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  Sandstein  08:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baylè 1879 wallet / palm pistol[edit]

Baylè 1879 wallet / palm pistol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable firearm; search in English found nothing - perhaps a French-speaker could help. Created by User:Ctway sock. ansh666 06:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Buster for finding sources. Now passes WP:GNG. ansh666 23:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh666 06:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ansh666 06:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...Dead end, one of a kind experimental weapons, with limited or no supporting references to establish notability do not meet guidelines.--RAF910 (talk) 06:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh666 07:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The "Gun Report" and "Gazette des Armes" articles reproduced on the personal website demonstrate sufficient coverage to pass GNG. I see no advantage to deleting it, though links directly to original articles would be helpful. BusterD (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment...the only reference I've found for this gun is the Horst Held Antique Handguns Auction site. They say that there are only three of this guns in existence. We have very little information about this guns history. And, we have nothing to show notability. If your an expert it antique obscure firearms then this gun might be of some note, even a curiosity. However, notability means impact, what is it about this gun that merits a Wikipedia page? There answer is nothing.--RAF910 (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Nothing except at least two articles from diverse reliable sources independent of the subject directly detailing, as reproduced on the web site. This subject passes the general notability guideline, based on those two sources alone. Nothing in guideline or policy says that sources must be online or easily available, only that they can be proven to exist. The reproductions on the site prove these sources exist, and roughly where they can be found. That's enough to pass GNG. The auction website itself is NOT a reliable source for information, so anything its says may not be accurate, but Gun Report and Gazette des Armes both can be judged RS; reproductions of those articles on the website is sufficient to document RS exists. As to WP:IMPACT, that's an obscure essay with little in the way of community consensus. GNG is, of course, the relevant guideline, "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow". BusterD (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I have applied the found sources as citation to the page (Google is a powerful tool). The Grimes article also mentions the September 1962 issue of Guns and Hunting and the December 1962 issue of Shooting Times (Volume 3, issue 12) which contain articles directly detailing this weapon. Four articles appearing in reliable sources which directly detail? This is way past GNG. BusterD (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment...do you have the Gun Report and Gazette des Armes articles in your possession? Have you read the articles? What issues are the articles from? What pages are the articles on? Do you even know what the articles say? Or, did you just see the pictures of them on the Horst Held Antique Handguns Auction site and assume that is enough to meet Wikipedia notability guidelines? The links to those articles that you provided above are worthless and do not meet Wiki standards.--RAF910 (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment User:RAF910 seems to want to personalize this discussion and add personal opinion. Instead I'd prefer to deal with issues of policy and guideline while discussing found sources, some of which which I've applied to the page. I agree with the nominator that this mostly unsourced page was created by a sock puppet and might need to be deleted. However, a closer look at photographs at the single self-published source reveals that several likely reliable sources exist. In order to document the auction item's history, the self-publishing author has scanned in and posted sections of two published articles, giving enough information to verify the articles' legitimacy and existence. Both these articles offer us a reliable source publisher, both of whom have covered such subjects for an extensive time and are regarded well in the gun collecting community. The articles' apparent legitimacy is likely why the auction seller chose them to improve his chances of selling the item. A reasonable online search finds sufficient documentation to verify the original dates of publication of the scanned articles. In my experience, it is neither OR or OS to use existing photographic clues to verify dates of publication, instead results of such searches would fall into the category of reasonable calculation. The text of one of the scanned articles makes it clear that several other sources had previously covered this subject. I've applied all of these, using as much information as I could find in the moment. Given this information framework, later editors should be able to bridge these gaps, given the starting places of each. The significance of these applied sources is for this process to decide, so I don't consider RAF910's opinions valueless. I do however urge !voters to look at the improvements in sourcing since this process has begun. Given the provided sources, this subject meets the general notability guideline, even if these weapons are rare indeed. Finally, as a wikipedian, I am not required to have personally read or used such sources myself, only to verify that reliable sources do exist. I believe I have made a good case that such sources exist and in adequate abundance. BusterD (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment...I agree, as Wikipedians we must assume good faith, and are not required to personally read references in order to verify that they are reliable sources. However, as the editor introducing the references you are required to do your due diligence, which includes actually having access to and reading the references. How else are you suppose to verify the references. You do not have access to those articles, you have not read them and you have no idea what those articles say. For all you know the writer stumbled across these guns and simply wanted to write an article about obscure eccentric antique firearms that are little more trivial footnotes in the history of firearms.--RAF910 (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage is sufficient to meet GNG. This is either a notable item, sufficiently old & obscure that on-line sources aren't so easy to come by; or a magnificently documented hoax. The former seems the far more likely of the two. (NB - even the nominator has concluded that the article meets GNG.) JohnInDC (talk) 12:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ansh666 04:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karveer Mahatmya[edit]

Karveer Mahatmya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy deletion notice removed by creator of page. Article exhibits no claim of significance. The creator, however states that the book claims it's own significance, or that's how I comprehended what was written on it's talk page Rollingcontributor (talk) 11:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't mean that the book claims it's own significance. The book has been referenced in several articles in regional (Marathi) newspapers and other books and publications over the years. Unfortunately, it is hard to find references just using Internet as not many of them were/are digitized. How can we substantiate the significance in this case - please let me know. In any case, looking forward, it would be valuable to have this article in Wikipedia. I hope that this short article will be enhanced over time. We have to start somewhere! PS: Apologies for removing the speedy deletion tag - I was not aware that it is not supposed to be removed.Rahulvkulkarni (talk) 11:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Rahulvkulkarni[reply]

• Comment: Please note that it's not compulsory to include websites as references. You may cite any number of books, journals and other printed material as long as you are confident they are reliable (See WP:REF). The article, as of now, cites only 1 reference. Please add multiple references. Also, consider creating new articles in the draft namespace (See WP:DRAFTS. Also, don't worry, it's okay, as you have removed the notice in good faith. Please don't do it again. Rollingcontributor (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If this is a traditional religious scripture, then it almost certainly is notable, and there should be sources. Even if it was a very obscure manuscript before it was published in 2012, it is probably notable & there should still be sources. However, if it does consist of original stories about the Hindu saint, it may not be notable. A book of that sort needs significant reviews and other evidence of importance for notability -- see WP:NBOOK. Whether the newspaper articles will be sufficient is hard to say. Since the book was only published in 2012, some of the articles should be on line. I recognize the extreme difficulty in sourcing this type of material: India has no index of periodical literature or of book reviews, and no national online catalog. Our essay WP:Systemic bias, though not policy, is generally observed here--what it means in this context is that we will often accept less formal or extensive sourcing, for such topics. But we do need something. DGG ( talk ) 22:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep perhaps or draft & userfy at best because Books, News and browsers inmedtwely found links especially from within the last century so this will also need familiar attention. Later, I may add some of the sources. SwisterTwister talk 01:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Tried searching with alt names (Karvir Mahatmya, करवीर माहात्म्य). Finds mentions in multiple books and newspaper reports, at least some of which consider it notable. Possibly of borderline notability, but I'd err on the side of caution. utcursch | talk 02:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Mohammad Abdullah[edit]

Salman Mohammad Abdullah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted for notability issue. No significant works what so ever, does not pass GNG nor ENT. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 13:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 13:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 13:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Actually i don't know what happened here in the second time nom? The article is now more reliable, though previously deleted. He has been awarded couple of time and also maintained both wikipedia GNG or ENT rules. ---- David Benzam^Contact 13:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Notability has clearly been established, most clearly in the biography. The article is more reliable with the notably guidelines and also references. No doubt about here in notability issue. Maria Sultana Jui (talk) 12:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question @Maria Sultana Jui: Would you clarify what you mean by "in the biography"? Are you referring to a specific source? If so, which one? Worldbruce (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have made this article with more reliable sources that proved independent references to establish WP:GNG with the Notability guidelines. He got award 3rd times in a row that proved ENT. — Masum Ibn Musa  ^Conversation 15:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inflexion Private Equity[edit]

Inflexion Private Equity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

promotional article about a firm with weak sources for notability . That's not surprising, for investment companies are not usually notable at $2 billion assets.

A list of "notable investments" is improper content, & trying to get notability by name-dropping.. Everyone who has even some mutual fund shares has some notable investments. And it even says that some of its investments were in firms that were "fasted growing", which is borrowing notability about something that isn't even notable , for any small firm can easily be "fastest growing" if it starts out low enough.

The references are to routine business notices, not about the company. There are quite a few of them, but they're not substantial. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now at best as the article is currently questionable overall for the applicable notability and improvements with my searches finding the expected coverage from News, browsers, Highbeam and finally Books (with this last one only being 1 business listing). SwisterTwister talk 07:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While some of the sources might be acceptable, the article reads like promotional advertising and is therefore missing Wikipedia's inclusion criteriaAtlantic306 (talk) 06:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Editor doing various COI promotional editing Deku-shrub (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Matthews[edit]

Nicholas Matthews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete perhaps as questionably independently notable and also consider redirecting to the band Get Scared. SwisterTwister talk 07:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]